« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
It's looking grim for Blackwater. Although the FBI hasn't finished its investigation into the September 16 shootings at Nisour Square -- in which 17 Iraqi civilians were killed -- The New York Times reports that the company's guards at the square, by and large, opened fire without provocation:
Federal agents investigating the Sept. 16 episode in which Blackwater security personnel shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians have found that at least 14 of the shootings were unjustified and violated deadly-force rules in effect for security contractors in Iraq, according to civilian and military officials briefed on the case....Investigators have concluded that as many as five of the company’s guards opened fire during the shootings, at least some with automatic weapons. Investigators have focused on one guard, identified as “turret gunner No. 3,” who fired a large number of rounds and was responsible for several fatalities.
Investigators found no evidence to support assertions by Blackwater employees that they were fired upon by Iraqi civilians. That finding sharply contradicts initial assertions by Blackwater officials, who said that company employees fired in self-defense and that three company vehicles were damaged by gunfire.
About the only bright spot for Blackwater: bureau officials appear inclined to give the guards the benefit of the doubt about the first round of shootings, in which Blackwater guards fired upon a white Kia sedan that didn't heed a traffic officer's order to stop at the square.
But so far, the FBI's account of the shooting is mostly in line with that of the Iraqi government and the U.S. military. In front of Congress and in a recent PR blitz, Blackwater owner and CEO Erik Prince has insisted that Blackwater guards were under attack. "There was definitely incoming small arms fire from insurgents," Prince told Wolf Blitzer last month. Blackwater has also consistently urged Congress, the press and the public to await the outcome of the FBI's investigation before passing judgment on the company.
Blackwater may have an additional argument ready for the court of public opinion. In the same round of interviews, Prince said that determining culpability may ultimately be impossible, since the scene of the shooting wasn't safe enough to conduct a "C.S.I."-like forensic search. The FBI may not buy that. But investigators are "frustrated" with the condition of their potential crime scene, according to the Times:
Investigators who arrived more than two weeks after the shooting could not reconstruct the crime scene, a routine step in shooting inquiries in the United States.Even the total number of fatalities remains uncertain because of the difficulty of piecing together what happened in a chaotic half-hour in a busy square. Moreover, investigators could not rely on videotapes or photographs of the scene, because they were unsure whether bodies or vehicles might have been moved.
Bodies of a number of victims could not be recovered. Metal shell casings recovered from the intersection could not be definitively tied to the shootings because, as one official described it, “The city is littered with brass.”
If the Justice Department decides to seek prosecution, watch the condition of Nisour Square become a key component of Blackwater's defense.
That's a big if, however. Remember that State Department investigators provided the Blackwater guards with immunity for their statements, meaning that prosecutors have the added hurdle of proving that they did not use the information gleaned from the statements in bringing the charges. That makes an unlikely prosecution all the more improbable. The department hasn't prosecuted a single security contractor for any potentially criminal activity in Iraq -- even behavior as egregious as getting drunk and shooting the bodyguard of an Iraqi dignitary at a Christmas party. New Attorney General Michael Mukasey would probably have to rely on the War Crimes Act to prosecute Blackwater, according to Rep. David Price (D-NC), who's trying to create some legal regime for security contractors overseas. That's a big test for Mukasey.
Comments (27)
tfatha wrote on November 14, 2007 9:21 AM:Don't worry. By the time that the FBI "finishes its investigation," the opiniono will be changed so that Blackwater will be "admonished for poor judgment but exonerated on any substantive charges." Then the Talk Machine will blame it all on abortion advocates and gays. Meanwhile, America will be talking about who's left on Dancing With The Stars.
Dr. Wu wrote on November 14, 2007 9:23 AM:These Blackwater guys sound like they'd make worthy hunting companions for the Vice President.
EdNSted wrote on November 14, 2007 9:51 AM:tfatha echos my sentiments on this as well.
In 2006, when the Democrats gained control of the House and Senate, my greatest hope was that real oversight with real accountability would be restored. I now see that I was deluding myself and that nothing could have been farther from the truth. The Democrats are clearly no more interested in oversight and accountability than are the Republicans.
So sadly, Blackwater will never be held accountable. Were it within my power, the Blackwater personnel responsible for these murders would forfeit their US citizenship and never be allowed back into the country. I certainly don't want them roaming free on the streets of my city.
Kate Henry wrote on November 14, 2007 9:53 AM:I find it sick that they justify killing three people just because their car rolled forward.
Official A wrote on November 14, 2007 9:57 AM:Perhaps Sens. Feinstein and Schumer and and their neo-liberal cronies favor retroactive immunity for murder as well as for torture and illegal surveillance?
Peter wrote on November 14, 2007 10:09 AM:I hope in prosecuting this they remember the man in Texas who was sentenced to death and almost executed because he was in the car his friend held up and killed the store clerk.
I only wish that accounability went all the way to the top in what is in essence an enterprise that has veered into criminal activity, murdering, stealing airplains and smuggling guns to name a few.
But nobody at the top of Bush gang is held responsible for their actions.
Alguien wrote on November 14, 2007 10:10 AM:tfatha wrote on November 14, 2007 9:21 AM:
"Don't worry. By the time that the FBI "finishes its investigation," the opinion will be changed so that Blackwater will be "admonished for poor judgment but exonerated on any substantive charges." Then the Talk Machine will blame it all on abortion advocates and gays. Meanwhile, America will be talking about who's left on Dancing With The Stars."
Exactly right! after all who cares about a few innocent Iraqi civilians fired upon by thugs with total impunity when we have other important issues like that, and Britney, and Anna Nicole to analyze ad nauseaum...?
markg8 wrote on November 14, 2007 10:34 AM:God, HELP America!
Is it a contest at TPM to see who can blame Democrats first for not being able to prosecute Bush and other Republicans for the crap they've pulled?
Bush has stonewalled investigations and legislation at every turn. He withholds docs, testimony and refuses any and all cooperation. Legislation he doesn't veto he renders moot with signing statements. The large Republican minorities and Bush dogs in the House and Senate back him up.
Our guys could go to court to try and force them to cooperate but that would not only be an exercise in futility that'd take more time than is left in Bush's term. With the way the current Supreme Court is constituted in the end it would give Roberts and
Alito a chance to cement Cheney's
bizarroworld theories about unitary executive powers firmly into law. That's the end game of any congressional legal challenge.
Is that what you want? Not me. Instead of shitting all over Dems
for not being able to take down an administration that has grabbed unprecedented amounts of power with the assistance of a corrupt press and a stacked judiciary why not vent your ire on those who deserve it? The people committing the crimes.
official A wrote on November 14, 2007 10:51 AM:markg8 wrote: "Is it a contest at TPM to see who can blame Democrats first"
I was a loyal Democrat for 35 years. I did not leave the Democrats, the Democrats left me...left me wanting someone, anyone, to uphold the rule of law in this country. Some "loyal" Democrats, placing party above principle, absolve the Democrats of responsibility every time another Bush criminal activity goes unanswered. I for one will no longer be an enabler nor an apologist.
We all know Bushco is a criminal enterprise. The intellectually honest among us also know the Democrats have done very little to combat the criminality.
tin foil wrote on November 14, 2007 10:56 AM:These same namesless/faceless soldiers of fortune will be patrolling the Mexican border in 08 killing unarmed Latinos.
Official A wrote on November 14, 2007 11:02 AM:markg8 wrote: "Is that what you want?"
What I want is some honesty. I want Democrats who are terrified of cutting off war funding to skip the "We need 67 votes" bullshit and say "We're afraid if we block funding fifty-one votes or filibuster with forty-one votes the Republicans will successfully portray us as terrorists, and we're too lazy and/or inept to combat the charge in the court of public opinion, we don't want to lose in 2008, so we're just lying to you and hoping your ignorance will enable us to hang on a little longer."
Or, they might say, "We could have blocked him, but voted for Mukasey anyway because we were afraid to admit a mistake in praising him to begin with, or maybe we really don't care about the Constitution and torture and uillegal surveillance because the lobbyists tell us what to think." Instead, they lamely protest, "Mukasey is the best we can do."
These are not leaders, they're cowards who care about nothing but their own re-elections. Damn them to hell.
Anonymous wrote on November 14, 2007 11:03 AM:tin foil wrote on November 14, 2007 10:56 AM:
These same namesless/faceless soldiers of fortune will be patrolling the Mexican border in 08 killing unarmed Latinos.
Dream on. This would actually be useful, therefore, it won't happen.
Billy Pilgrim wrote on November 14, 2007 11:08 AM:This is splitting hairs. The entire involvement of the U.S. in Iraq is unjustified. Blood is on the hands of many including all of those in Congress who failed to put a stop the indiscriminate killing when they had the opportunity.
ElBorba wrote on November 14, 2007 11:26 AM:Does anyone know the schedule for completing and releasing the FBI report?
Alguien wrote on November 14, 2007 11:58 AM:Maybe a week from today?
Or, failing that, maybe our new AG can get it released on December 24th!
How much do you bet that this item will not even make the nightly news in the ADM (Ad-Driven Media).
Or, if it does, what are the odds of it being a lede or even in the top five items?
Anonymous wrote on November 14, 2007 11:03 AM:
tin foil wrote on November 14, 2007 10:56 AM:
These same namesless/faceless soldiers of fortune will be patrolling the Mexican border in 08 killing unarmed Latinos.
Dream on. This would actually be useful, therefore, it won't happen.
Exactly WHY would killing unarmed Latinos be actually useful?
Useful to whom? To the country?
Before you start with any "Dobbsesque" anti-immigration rant, ask yourself this: would you be willing to pay $6-8 for a head of lettuce? If the answer is yes:
a)SECURE the borders (NOT with THUGS that shoot before asking questions]
b) JAIL (not just fine) all those employers that hire illegal workers to do the dirty jobs for a fraction of what Americans workers demand.
And if the answer is no, next time you visit the produce section at your grocery store, take a moment to thank God for those poor unarmed Latinos that rsik their lives every day to earn a living (and that you would like to see killed)
TheraP wrote on November 14, 2007 12:03 PM:I'm with Official A. At first I did not want to dump on the Dems in Congress. But now I'm to the point where unless they stand up for the Rule of Law, unless they risk their jobs to uphold the Constitution, they are failing in their oath of office.
I can no longer stand up for Congressional Dems who do not stand up for We the People, the Fourth Branch - the Rule of Law, the Constitution.
It's that simple.
If you ever want my vote again, show me where your loyalty lies. If it does not lie with the Constitution, then forget about my vote, forget about my support.
brian wrote on November 14, 2007 12:44 PM:Much worse is on the way.
Blackwater will be deployed here in our country. They will be used to circumvent the law against using the military against civilians.
The fake story will be that Blackwater 'heroes' are rescuing victims of floods and fires.
Then they will shoot 'looters' and 'rioters' - the story will be slanted their way on the news. Then we will be powerless to get rid of them.
The Republicans want this next election to be about hairdos and name-calling and Who Said What About Whom.
Do not be fooled. The Republicans are wrecking our government. They must be thrown out.
Diode-light without heat wrote on November 14, 2007 12:44 PM:I was a loyal Democrat for 35 years. I did not leave the Democrats, the Democrats left me...left me wanting someone, anyone, to uphold the rule of law in this country. Some "loyal" Democrats, placing party above principle, absolve the Democrats of responsibility every time another Bush criminal activity goes unanswered. I for one will no longer be an enabler nor an apologist.
We all know DNCco is also a criminal enterprise. The intellectually honest among us also know the Democrats have done very little to combat the criminality.
(Slight correction made this more accurate)
"Don't worry. By the time that the FBI "finishes its investigation," the opinion will be changed so that Blackwater will be "admonished for poor judgment but exonerated on any substantive charges." Then the Talk Machine will blame it all on abortion advocates and gays. Meanwhile, America will be talking about who's left on Dancing With The Stars."
{correction below}
"Don't worry. By the time that the
[insert here anything of a political nature]is finished the Talk Machine will blame it all on Right to life voters and and Christian Fundamentalists. Meanwhile, America will be talking about who's left on Dancing With The Stars."
The sad fact is 80% of our population is kind of tuning out with what the 10% extremists on each end (yes you are one) are saying. Call it cynicism , fatigue or even narcissism most really don't stay involved.
EdNSted wrote on November 14, 2007 1:05 PM:Gee, who knew demanding that the constitution be enforced and defended makes one an extremist? And trying to hold the Democrats accountable for their gross dereliction of duty, lack of moral character and wholesale enabling of the Republican criminal enterprise?
Mea culpa. Clearly, I'm off my Aqua-Dots.
michael valentine wrote on November 14, 2007 2:00 PM:Did the State department feel left out of the game and so got their own gestapo that is beyond the law?
Does Mistress of the Shoes feel the need for her own little Nazi troops?
Diode wrote on November 14, 2007 2:33 PM:Most Americans beleive that the surge has helped things in Iraq.If there was not so much animosity and unproductive finger pointing, then our government would begin to work well. This site is a testimony that some feel America can only be governed with a single party system.
Im Kant wrote on November 14, 2007 3:06 PM:What should happen is the Rep's should admit maybe getting into Iraq was a mistake and the Dem's need to admit that the idea of setting a date for withdrawl was the same as foolishly setting a date for surrender.
Billy Pilgrim wrote
This is splitting hairs. The entire involvement of the U.S. in Iraq is unjustified. Blood is on the hands of many including all of those in Congress who failed to put a stop the indiscriminate killing when they had the opportunity.
"...confessing to slaughtering 180,000 Kurds and plotting to build a doomsday nuke, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was so upset..." -yesterday's news
I beleive my Kurdish freinds would disagree with you.Please don't have selective mercy. Should we have waited for another 180,000 to die or worse....?
Zoyd Wheeler wrote on November 14, 2007 3:18 PM:The whiff of fascism is in the air, and has been since November of 2000. Everything appears to be on schedule in this regard. All we need now is a "national emergency" requiring a postponement of the 2008 election. Every free thinking citizen is a enemy combatant now.
siggy wrote on November 14, 2007 5:27 PM:Paranoia is a disturbed thought process characterized by excessive anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs concerning a perceived threat.
Official A wrote on November 14, 2007 6:31 PM:siggy wrote: "Paranoia is a disturbed thought process characterized by excessive anxiety or fear."
Even paranoids can have real enemies, however.
Paranoid yet? wrote on November 14, 2007 8:31 PM:It's high time to be paranoid. No shame or mental illness is involved in seeing the dangers of fascism in our midst.
First they go after the Bridge Ladies. Then they come for you.
v. popvli wrote on November 15, 2007 3:33 PM:Im Kant wrote on November 14, 2007 3:06 PM:
Billy Pilgrim wrote
This is splitting hairs. The entire involvement of the U.S. in Iraq is unjustified. Blood is on the hands of many including all of those in Congress who failed to put a stop the indiscriminate killing when they had the opportunity.
"...confessing to slaughtering 180,000 Kurds and plotting to build a doomsday nuke, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was so upset..." -yesterday's news
I beleive my Kurdish freinds would disagree with you.Please don't have selective mercy. Should we have waited for another 180,000 to die or worse....?
------------------------------
are kurds worth more than sudanese or rwandans? maybe they are, since their land has oil. i didn't see the u.s. standing up to genocide under clinton, and bush's record on genocide is comparable. maybe you are the one with selective mercy, Im Kant. we didn't go to iraq to stop any genocide - the kurds were simply a convenient party to "welcome us as liberators." if the u.s. had a consistent record of genocide intervention in its foreign policy, then you'd be ok to make the argument that we went to iraq to save the kurds. we don't. instead, what the u.s. has is a consistent record of military intervention over our economic and energy interests.